what is the best physics textbook for someone who wants rigor

>>8894968
Just learn math if you want rigor

>>8894981
Maybe rigor was the wrong word. I just hate long winded intro textbooks. I like just the essentials.

>>8894987
Try Feynman's 3 books on introductory physics.

>>8894968
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Physics

Also read the sticky faggot

>>8894999
>University_Physics
barf

>>8894999
This is exactly what im not looking for. Surely there is a more condensed and equally thorough version?

>>8894968
Kleppner & Kolenkow - An Introduction to Mechanics
Purcell & Morin - Electricity and Magnetism
Georgi - The Physics of Waves (http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~hgeorgi/new.htm)
Fermi - Thermodynamics (Dover Books on Physics)
Eisberg & Resnick - Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles

>>8895323
why do you want something more condensed?
do you think it will save you time ?

>>8895372
Thanks boss, this is exactly what I'm looking for

File: 41MRaPt8iTL._SX379_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (32KB, 381x499px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 381x499px

>>8894968
>>8895323
> condensed!!

>>8895380
>do you think it will save you time ?

This guy clearly does not appreciate that physics is much more about learning how to apply physical principles than learning math equations.

OP, you must practice physics and work through examples if you hope to understand and be able to usefully apply what you learn. It is literally impossible to be good a physics or math with out working examples and practice. That would be like saying you know how to play piano because you can read sheet music.

I have a BS in physics, and am working on a PhD in EE. Truth be told, all of the physics I have learned could be easily condensed to one page of notes. That being said, I could write a book at this point on all the different ways to apply those equations.

Just to give you a small example of what I mean, consider the physical input of classical electrodynamics:

[eqn]
\nabla \times \vec{E} = - \vec{J}_m - \frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t}\\
\nabla \times \vec{H} = \vec{J}_e + \frac{\partial \vec{D}}{\partial t}\\
\nabla \times \vec{D} = \rho_e \\
\nabla \times \vec{B} = \rho_m \\
\vec{f} = \rho_e (\vec{E} + \vec{v} \times \vec{B}) + \rho_m (\vec{H} - \vec{v} \times \vec{D})
[/eqn]

From just these 5 equations you can construct the theory of electromagnetic radiation, diffraction, refraction, ray-optics, lumped circuit analysis, etc. etc.

Do yourself a favor and get a good physics book. One that I liked was Knight's Physics For Scientists and Engineers. It's a freshman undergrad intro to physics book for majors. It's also over 1000 pages long. That sounds like the exact opposite of what you are looking for, but believe me, it isn't. Physics covers an enormous breadth of topics, and like mathematics, there is no golden road, only hard work. And seriously, though, stay the fuck away from University Physics. I tutored students using that tripe as a text, and was extremely disappointed.

It pays off in spades though.

>>8895423
>stay the fuck away from University Physics. I tutored students using that tripe as a text, and was extremely disappointed.

Why?

>>8895433
It is the kind of physics book that teaches you enough concepts to pass a premed physics class exam, and then forever forget the material.

I was just really unimpressed by it when flipping though the book when tutoring students. Maybe I'm mistaking it for another series, but I'm pretty sure I'm not, and any book with like 10+ editions has got to be milking it.

>>8894968
That's a very nice picture OP. Saved.

>>8894968
If you want terse and rigorous then this is worthless:>>8895372


Go for Landau and Liftshitz the full course in theoretical physics. Covers EM, mechanics, thermo, quantum and more in a more concise and advanced way than suggested


With that said if you are at an undergraduate level or new to the subjects then >>8895372 is a good set of recommendations.

>>8895423

couldnt find a pdf for the book you suggested.

I am neet what do anon

File: 1484987436560.jpg (205KB, 1500x1281px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1500x1281px

>>8895672
There is a PDF of the third edition you mong

File: genius_doctors.png (432KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 720x960px

What are the best geometry texts?

>>8897374
https://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Geometry-Logic-Applications/dp/2881246834

>>8897374
Euclidean:
Euclid's Elements is always good. Hartshorne is also good if you want to see both the original perspective and a more modern field-theoretic one.

Differential:
Lee, do Carmo, Jost

Complex:
Huybrechts, Griffiths&Harris

Algebraic:
Hartshorne, Eisenbud&Harris, Vakil

>>8897792
Ollo, thanks anon, have any tips for other basic texts? (Modern algebra, topology, foundations, etc?)

>the wiki is still gay

>>8897829
Munkres is the go to for Topology.

For Algebra, Dummit&Foote is standard and quite good. But I prefer Aluffi because it integrates Categorical thinking into everything, which is really helpful if you move onto Algebraic Topology, Algebraic Geometry, Homological Algebra (above the level contained in the book), etc.

Foundations never interested me.

>>8897829
>>the wiki is still gay

go to the wikia

>>8897934
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematics

>>8897941
The fuck, why isn't this the sticky? Easily 10x better?

>>8897829
Herstein is also great for algebra. The Galois stuff is a bit anemic tho.

>>8895672
I actually have a thread up for PDFs titled Study suggestions and it has the drop link in the OP

File: Capture.png (187KB, 1135x567px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1135x567px

>>8897961

There's a big link in the middle of the page.

>>8894968

Griffiths for E&M and quantum

>>8894968
Throw everything out of the window and go homeless innawoods for a year and you'll come out knowing more about the dynamics of life and nature than any cuck on r/sci ever will.
Then start reading into heaviside, steinmetz, j.j thompson, alexanderson, and pretty much everyone that isn't a student of corpuscularism.
After that math will be a walk in and you'll be a literal tesla wizard.

>>8895672
4th edition is on lib gen

>>8898386
I have to wonder if all/any of the people who routinely suggest griffiths have actually read it.
Granted I've only studied in depth the first 5 chapters, and have no intentions of finishing, but while it's not the worst book, it certainly is far from warranting the recommendations it gets.

>>8900551
I suppose I should add that's the first 5 chapters of griffiths QM - I've only studied a few sections in EM

File: IMG_5250.jpg (62KB, 400x500px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 400x500px

That "unnecessary crap," is how you understand the problem. Physics really isn't about memorization.

If all you do is "plug and chug," how will you know if an answer is reasonable?

Pic: I found this book pretty enjoyable when I took the course. It's not extremely long winded, however it does give solid historical context and motivation for the topics discussed, which is an indefinitely better way of understanding a concept.

It's like, Schrödinger's equation is essentially a hand-waving argument. Learning the derivation of it isn't going to give you a great physical understanding, because it's not something that follows directly from physical principle.

>>8900552
The EM book is extremely approachable and pedantically developed. It's a great book that I still go back to every once in a while even as a grad.

The QM book is hit and miss with people. Personally I loved the book. However, as I have learned more about quantum mechanics and the language you encounter in literature, I have found the book to be ultimately wanting. I think it's a great intro text to build some intuition, but there are more sophisticated books out there that simply go much farther than Griffiths does.